Logs of the focus group discussion for #strategic-cruisers

[01:01] <eustise> that got sent to me to, though that link just sent me to the Tengu page on the wiki or smtg

[01:38] <noxisia> I mailed him back and asked if he could send me an eft copy of the fitting or a screenshot...\

[01:38] <noxisia> He also mailed me

[01:39] <noxisia> And I linked him the proposed changes thread... that random people are at least asking for their interests to be heard? I mean, I wouldn't use that setup but it's better to address it as a serious question

[03:21] <rowells> exooki [3:40 PM]

[03:21] <rowells> would people use probes on a non cloaky t3 tho?

[03:22] <rowells> absolutely

[03:53] <asher_elias> every FC t3 uses probes

[05:22] <asher_elias> @white0rchid Where are you seeing petes these days?

[05:23] <asher_elias> I hardly ever see them

[06:11] <white0rchid> I'm not

[06:12] <white0rchid> I meant to say "aren't" as common

[06:12] <white0rchid> I hardly ever see them now

[06:13] <white0rchid> But rail Tengus in general are still used. Fairly sure tri & friends have a 10mn rail tengu doctrine

[07:19] <asher_elias> they aren't very common

[07:20] <asher_elias> in general you'd rather have a rail t3

[07:20] <asher_elias> the tengu has a range bonus but a bigger sig and the further you go you're just making it easier for machs to track you

[07:20] <asher_elias> better to be closer and lower sig

[07:45] <white0rchid> Yeah indeed, but I think the range bonus is the thing is has going for it

[07:45] <white0rchid> I was arguing that if you remove that you may as well just use ahacs

[08:07] <asher_elias> yeah I think the range bonus on the tengu is the most logical choice

[09:32] <asher_elias> but right now it's pushed out of that role by the mach

[10:28] <jintaan> @asher_elias: Petes are still used when people can't fight straight up, Ghost Legion has used them a few times in support of PL in the Provi thing early on

[10:28] <jintaan> But they're nowhere near as widespread as they used to be post Rail RoF nerf

[10:30] <jintaan> And the probing changes OFC

[10:58] <titus.tallang> guys, reminder: if you want edit access to the talking points gdoc, dm me your email here, don't use "request access" - i don't know if you're you or just a random person on reddit who likes fondling buttons that look pretty

[12:43] <caprisunkraftfoods> hey fozzie even if you want to do base stats one ship at a time that'd be great

[12:44] <caprisunkraftfoods> would give us more time and more focus, and I imagine would be a lot easier for you to get your thoughts together

[14:25] <rowells> What do you guys think of a cap use bonus on 2 of the logi subsystems instead of a raw amount increase to make them a little differentiated?

[14:25] <rowells> Two of them focusing on power and the other two focusing on endurance

[15:42] <eustise> may synergise too well with the cores and the changes we have discussed about them

[15:43] <eustise> if you got an innate neut resist, toss another battery or two and i think a capchain will sustain no probs against even large neuts

[15:44] <titus.tallang> there's no cap chain bonuses on any of them

[15:48] <rowells> I was thinking it would go well with the caldari/amarr capacitor core subs, didn't really think cap chains would be used all too much

[15:49] <rowells> Course there would niche cases

[15:49] <exooki> id worry that any sort of cap xfer bonuses, or cap chains in egenral encroaches a bit too much on logi

[15:49] <rowells> _glares suspiciously at weird wormholers_

[15:49] <exooki> atm, t3 logi as is is a niche use, possibly wider after the changes

[15:49] <exooki> right now their lack of good range bonuses makes them very hard to use

[15:50] <exooki> the new bonuses look a lot more workable, so i expect well see increased usage, but id imagine they will rep less, but sport better tank/ other utility than a guardian or basi would add

[15:50] <rowells> Yeah, even assuming it remains niche afterwards, there will still be some clear winners and losers of the group so making them different would separate that

[15:51] <rowells> Between the T3s themselves at least

[15:52] <rowells> I think the range bonus is going to have a bigger impact than we might predict.

[15:52] <rowells> But that's going to also depend on how the tank looks afterwards as well

[16:45] <rowells> Also @exooki in regards to 20% optimal on tengu, that's the same/similar bonus as seen on the current tengu, eagle, vulture, and only 25% more than the ferox. 10% bonus would make it the shortest range-bonuses caldari turret boat

[16:46] <sturm_gewehr> I want peoples' opinion on adding missile/turret hardpoints (3-5) and minor offensive bonus(es) to the support system to give players the option to fit links with damage, which is currently an option. The intention would be to have combat link ships that are at a lower power level offensively than full offensive t3cs or alternatives such as BCs/CS.

[16:46] <sturm_gewehr> @sturm_gewehr pinned a message to this channel.

[16:46] <sturm_gewehr> [June 1st, 2017 9:46 AM] sturm_gewehr: I want peoples' opinion on adding missile/turret hardpoints (3-5) and minor offensive bonus(es) to the support system to give players the option to fit links with damage, which is currently an option. The intention would be to have combat link ships that are at a lower power level offensively than full offensive t3cs or alternatives such as BCs/CS.

[16:47] <exooki> @rowells its also the only one that can be cloaked and immune to bubbles though

[16:48] <rowells> True, but that's not its most common use nor is it without penalty (especially after the proposed changes)

[16:48] <exooki> my concern is that with the extra slots, youll be able to fit enough sensor boosts to overcome thos penalties

[16:49] <exooki> the penalties are directly aimed at uncatchable sniping platforms, and i worry that it wont be effective

[16:56] <eustise> personally i think the very fact we'll have bursting logi will be varied enough, i don't see the necessity to 'suck in' roles from other burst ships

[16:57] <eustise> we already have concerns of them being too strong as is, let alone with offensive bonuses

[16:58] <exooki> i think DPS + boosts should be left to CSs

[16:58] <exooki> here we have logi + boosts which is its own unique role

[16:58] <exooki> cause barring some weird fits, only a t3C can rep and boost , which helps add to the unqiue flavor

[16:58] <exooki> of combinations the t3c can do no one else can

[17:03] <rowells> It's gonna depend on how heavy the range penalty is, regardless, they're going to have to swap out some modules that were otherwise running ECCM. Unless they don't do that anymore in which case the improbable part is gone.

[17:04] <rowells> Throw on the dog bloom + agility nerf and brute going to be much easier to probe down and tackle.

[17:05] <sturm_gewehr> Links on BC hulls do not work for some gang types, especially keeping ships cruisers and below.

[17:07] <sturm_gewehr> It is a current option that is not OP or crowds out BC hulls in most cases, could fairly easily be implemented here. Failure to do so will be a direct take away from a currently healthy playstyle that players enjoy.

[17:07] <sturm_gewehr> Even just giving weapon hardpoints would be a positive change, it adds variety.

[17:08] <sturm_gewehr> I don't see any negatives from a balance or gameplay perspective to let link t3s defend themselves.

[17:09] <sturm_gewehr> Even a scimitar has 2 turrets and a launcher hardpoint.

[17:12] <sturm_gewehr> At the very, very minimum it would be unacceptable for the changes to go love without support sub having some weapon hardpoints.

[17:15] <rowells> I don't see any harm in like 3-4 of them. I also don't see much of the benefit but that's just me

[17:15] <sturm_gewehr> But I think adding a moddst rof/damage bonus to primary or even secondary weapon systems for each race, possibly with a weak application bonus coupled with limited weapon slots would be more ideal and supportive to alternative playstyles.

[17:17] <sturm_gewehr> 1) bait logi fits 2) 100mn cruiser fleets that BCs have no role in and existing logi are superior rep options 3) link/recons that have the option to havr self defense 4) players who cannot take advantage of the reps due to skillpoint restraints, but can do links and guns 5) BNC weapon for killmails.

[17:19] <sturm_gewehr> 6) reasons we aren't yet aware of but reducing options means we would never be able to figure out 7) for the AT strategic cruisers can't use reps but link options, especially with recon subs, could be very viable and meta shaping but current sub severely limits highslot options

[17:20] <sturm_gewehr> 8) solo fits that want to use links

[17:24] <sturm_gewehr> 9) offensive highslot for drone assist

[17:26] <rowells> 3 and 8 seem more like reasons not to go to far with it imo.

[17:27] <rowells> Links ships just self-linking for me has always been that middle ground between "pretty cool utility" and "probably a bit unbalanced"

[17:28] <sturm_gewehr> I stated that it should be at a modest power level that doesn't compete with existing offensive sub options.

[17:30] <sturm_gewehr> 10) multiple link fits that won't have fitting space to utilize reps but could benefit from some damage options. Here is a quick example:

[17:33] <sturm_gewehr> I got to take off for now but would like to get more feedback. I did add this to the discussion sheet.

[18:26] <noxisia> On the earlier point of missile/turret hardpoints on the RR / Boost subsystems - I'd be fine with that.

[18:27] <noxisia> There's plenty of people using RR tengus / legions whatever to run sites in null or wormhole space. They aren't the MOST effecient at that role but they are easier to get out with than a battleship.

[18:27] <exooki> there is?

[18:32] <sturm_gewehr> And spider tanking pvp is sometimes a thing, particularly in lowsec.

[18:34] <sturm_gewehr> And it removes the option for blops link fits to fit for gank.

[18:56] <noxisia> I've got a set of RR tengu's somewhere set up for c4s. I don't use them much but I occasionally see lossmails in c3's with dual RR legions

[20:24] <ccp_fozzie> Hey guys. just invited the last two invitees so we should be fully staffed soon :slightly_smiling_face:

[20:25] <ccp_fozzie> I had to spend most of today on other things again, but made a bit of progress on a few bits of this design. I expect we'll have an update to the google sheet with changes you've suggested tomorrow, as well as some initial hull and subsystem stats

[20:26] <ccp_fozzie> We're currently leaning towards a conceptual change of moving some of the attributes back to the hull and only putting what's needed on the subs, which should allow us to put a summary of + stats each sub includes in its description

[20:27] <ccp_fozzie> should make it a lot easier for newer players to grasp what attributes each sub actually impacts

[20:28] <ccp_fozzie> For instance, instead of having 100 armor on the hull and adding the rest through subs, add the minimum armor that the ship can actually have to the hull, and then have the subs that add more armor clearly state how much more they add

[20:28] <ccp_fozzie> Am interested in what you guys think of that conceptual shift: do you like the improved clarity? Does it feel less flavourful?

[20:29] <ccp_fozzie> We're also bouncing around ideas for a dedicated Subsystem hold after the discussion around cargo space yesterday and a few suggestions from the forums: I'm also really interested in what you all think about that

[20:31] <rowells> I like the concept change.

[20:31] <ccp_fozzie> And finally, we're thinking about adding some fitting reductions for appropriate weapons/repairers to these ships. Either to the hulls or to the offensive subs. That way a fit that leaves the highs open won't have quite such an overpowered amount of free fitting when focusing on pure tank/ewar

[20:31] <mawderator> What attributes in particular are you looking to give to the hulls themselves at this time?

[20:31] <ccp_fozzie> the stuff about armor above is a good example @mawderator

[20:32] <ccp_fozzie> Speed would be another good example

[20:32] <ccp_fozzie> right now the hull has 10m/s and the rest comes from the subs

[20:32] <ccp_fozzie> with this switch the hull would have speed equal to whatever we want the velocity with the slowest sub to be, and then the faster subs just add the extra speed

[20:33] <ccp_fozzie> so you can clearly see what extra speed they add

[20:33] <ccp_fozzie> but there'd be about a dozen similar examples with the switch

[20:33] <rowells> Hope it doesn't crowd up the description tab

[20:34] <ccp_fozzie> the description tab of the subs would get a lot longer, but this stuff would be at the bottom and people would be free to stop reading after the bonuses

[20:38] <mawderator> the rest being some sort of flavor text?

[20:39] <ccp_fozzie> would list the stat benefits of the sub

[20:40] <ccp_fozzie> +200 Armor

[20:40] <ccp_fozzie> +30km Lock Range

[20:40] <ccp_fozzie> stuff like that

[20:40] <mawderator> ok that makes more sense

[20:41] <rowells> That would also make this whole discussion session super easy to work with

[20:43] <noxisia> That would be an extremely nice change

[20:43] <noxisia> (subs just list stat benefit)

[21:09] <titus.tallang> like it a lot, @ccp_fozzie - thanks for listening

[21:38] <exooki> i like that move

[21:38] <exooki> it ameks it wasy easier to compare subsystems

[21:39] <exooki> dedicated hold was brought up several times by wormholers, does including rigs seem too much?

[21:39] <exooki> i guess they are smaller tha the subs, so maybe not as much of an issue cargo wise

[21:39] <exooki> but most refits for a new purpose would probably see different rigs as well

[21:55] <ccp_fozzie> yeah the idea would be more of an assistance for bring stuff along than one bay that handles everything

[21:59] <exooki> would it be easier to just make subs smaller m3 wise?

[22:00] <exooki> flavor wise, i guess the dedicated bay is cooler

[22:00] <exooki> and doesnt risk making them carry too much

[22:03] <caprisunkraftfoods> sounds like a totally sensible move on balancing the T3s that way

[22:03] <caprisunkraftfoods> re: the subsystem bonuses

[22:03] <caprisunkraftfoods> solid QoL improvement

[23:00] <sturm_gewehr> :+1: @ccp_fozzie clarity is great and I like the special cargo bay direction.

[23:14] <sullen> @ccp_fozzie good idea on the change. one of the biggest discussions in and outside of this chat is exactly how much effect these subsystems would have given we don't know base stats.

[23:48] <icarus_narcissus> @ccp_fozzie I definitely agree with the idea of the subsystem hold.